Hello Steve, On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 04:24:34PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 11:45:29PM +0100, raphael@walther.im wrote: > > I have been asked at the last meeting to review and submit the budget to > > chairs. I did read the contracts and updated the budget with the help of hug. > > > Please find the updated budget attached with this email. I will also update the > > file in the usual place. > > > Comments are following in a separate email. > > I am very frustrated by this. You were not "asked" at the last meeting to > review and submit the budget to the chairs; you volunteered to review it > without being asked at all. You also said during the meeting that you would > review it with me, which is not what has been done here - you have made > changes to the budget without any discussion with me at all. I understand that and I really apology for not communicating with you during this process. The time we can allocate to this budget review is quite limited. That why I didn't take the time to discuss it with you at all. That being said, I didn't volunteer for this task. You might think that asking: 19:29:02 <rafw> yes, where is the budget? Is equivalent to volunteer for it but that wasn't my intention at all and was quite surprise when gwolf asked me to review it. http://meetbot.debian.net/debconf-team/2014/debconf-team.2014-03-11-19.00.log.html#l-138 However, I am not sure that this debate is important. > These changes apparently include a modification of the conference dates, > despite the fact that these have been published for months and despite the > signed contract with fixed start and end dates for the venue rental. > > Proper budgeting for the conference is clearly very important, and I'm > grateful for review from the wider team to ensure our budget is realistic > and properly reflects the conference priorities. But wholesale replacing > one budget document with another, without any discussion or explanation, is > not a welcome form of "review". > > If you disagree with particular points in the budget I prepared and want to > discuss, then let's discuss here on the list. Otherwise, I intend to ignore > this budget document, which not only does not represent the best estimates > of the local team, but includes *increases* in the costs assigned to various > line items with no explanation. I am listing the main point our budget we disagree on: 1) sponsored amount of persons should be in the range of 120 based on previous years experience 2) sponsorship income of USD 156k seems to be really unrealistic now. Numbers from previous DebConfs would suggest a realistic target in the range of USD 90-100k 3) we based our budget on the contracts 4) carry on surplus and deficit to next DebConf is insane Cheers, Raphaël
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature